The Tea Party vs a $70 million HS Football Stadium

Guess which state?

The Tea Party vs. the $70 million high school football stadium - The Week

In Texas, pretty much the only thing more popular than low taxes is football. Hence the awkward battle in Katy, Texas, over a proposal to build the most expensive high school football stadium in the United States.

The 14,000-seat stadium would be built next to the 10,000-seat stadium the school already has. Improvements would include state-of-the-art lighting, concourses to provide shelter during storms, bigger bathrooms, and adjacent field houses to hold weight rooms and offices for the staff. The proposed price tag is $69.5 million.

Every other stadium that even comes close is located in, you guessed it, Texas. That includes the $49 million Woodforest Bank Stadium near Houston and the Alamo Stadium in San Antonio, a 23,000-seat facility that is currently undergoing a $35 million renovation.

Of course, it's not Jerry Jones who is footing the nearly $70 million bill for Katy's new football stadium; it's the taxpayers, as part of a $100 million bond package. And that has some local Tea Party members, like Cyndi Lawrence, angry, according to the Houston Chronicle:

A $69 million price tag for a second stadium is excessive on the backs of the taxpayers … Just a few years ago, the housing market crashed. Who's to say this market is stable? If something happens again, they will be forced to raise taxes. I think it's just bad planning, putting that much debt on future generations.

Uh Oh....for the Teabaggers.
 
$70 million

Would pay for 175,000 laptop computers
Would pay a years tuition at a Texas University for 14,000 students

Where does the educational dollar go in Texas?
FOOTBALL

and money via corporate sponsorships help bring back money into the coffers. while i think 70 million for a HS football stadium is ridiculous, the voters approved it. it is not your money, so why are you bitching about it?

Not bitching.....laughing. :lol:
 
The strength of America`s military lies in the fact that its members are volunteers, who WANT to be there.

If there was military draft and you were 18 years old and just received your draft notice, you would probably burn it and bolt to Canada as your fellow liberals did a generation ago.

Just my 2 cents.

We'd still have an all volunteer miliatry. But they would be supported by a national guard that is predicated on 2 years mandatory cumpulsory service...whether your name is Jane Doe or Sasha Obama.

As for bolting to Canada, I know you guys don't like details so I won't bore you with them but when your nation is at war that it's leaders are deeming unwinnable and are suing for peace, you think twice about going into battle.

Secondarily, this isn't a draft; it's part of the deal...you turn 18 and you spend 2 years on patrol supporting the standing army. Do we really need active duty MP's guarding Luke AFB?

good points. Vietraq would never had happened had repubs realized their kids might have to go to one of those Halliburton/KBR bases over there.

I'm sure there were a lot of well off liberals who did the same thing...
 
It does seem a little strange for a state to build such an expensive football stadium while denying the expansion of Medicaid which would bring healthcare coverage to some of the poorest people in the state, but this is Texas and there're big football fans.
 
Just a few years ago, the housing market crashed. Who's to say this market is stable? If something happens again, they will be forced to raise taxes. I think it's just bad planning, putting that much debt on future generations.

That bothers you, does it big guy?

:eusa_liar:
 
It does seem a little strange for a state to build such an expensive football stadium while denying the expansion of Medicaid which would bring healthcare coverage to some of the poorest people in the state, but this is Texas and there're big football fans.

Not funding more welfare is "denying" money to the poor. Got it.

Since your standard for Texas is that everything they spend must be measured on the scale of denying giving it to the poor, if we go through your personal budget, what would we find that you "denied" giving to people who need it more than you do?
 
I don't understand all the vitriol on this.

It was put to a vote and the people have spoken. That's how it's supposed to work.

If only they'd do the same when it comes to hydraulic fracturing...
 
I don't understand all the vitriol on this.

It was put to a vote and the people have spoken. That's how it's supposed to work.

If only they'd do the same when it comes to hydraulic fracturing...

Private owners have approved of operators drilling on their land.

Sure, but what's being taken out and the what gets left behind often impacts a lot of private owners who were not consulted and do not get any share in the profits.
 
I don't understand all the vitriol on this.

It was put to a vote and the people have spoken. That's how it's supposed to work.

If only they'd do the same when it comes to hydraulic fracturing...

Private owners have approved of operators drilling on their land.

Sure, but what's being taken out and the what gets left behind often impacts a lot of private owners who were not consulted and do not get any share in the profits.

I don't know of any landowners who aren't receiving their working interest. I've sifted through over 5000 contracts and haven't seen that. What were you referring to when you mentioned stuff being left behind?
 
Guess which state?

The Tea Party vs. the $70 million high school football stadium - The Week

In Texas, pretty much the only thing more popular than low taxes is football. Hence the awkward battle in Katy, Texas, over a proposal to build the most expensive high school football stadium in the United States.

The 14,000-seat stadium would be built next to the 10,000-seat stadium the school already has. Improvements would include state-of-the-art lighting, concourses to provide shelter during storms, bigger bathrooms, and adjacent field houses to hold weight rooms and offices for the staff. The proposed price tag is $69.5 million.

Every other stadium that even comes close is located in, you guessed it, Texas. That includes the $49 million Woodforest Bank Stadium near Houston and the Alamo Stadium in San Antonio, a 23,000-seat facility that is currently undergoing a $35 million renovation.

Of course, it's not Jerry Jones who is footing the nearly $70 million bill for Katy's new football stadium; it's the taxpayers, as part of a $100 million bond package. And that has some local Tea Party members, like Cyndi Lawrence, angry, according to the Houston Chronicle:

A $69 million price tag for a second stadium is excessive on the backs of the taxpayers … Just a few years ago, the housing market crashed. Who's to say this market is stable? If something happens again, they will be forced to raise taxes. I think it's just bad planning, putting that much debt on future generations.

Let me guess, since the stadium is infrastructure and/or education, and the Tea Party is against it, it is good.

Or are you just being stupid?
 
I don't understand all the vitriol on this.

It was put to a vote and the people have spoken. That's how it's supposed to work.

If only they'd do the same when it comes to hydraulic fracturing...

Private owners have approved of operators drilling on their land.

Sure, but what's being taken out and the what gets left behind often impacts a lot of private owners who were not consulted and do not get any share in the profits.

Even as a libertarian, I have a hard time viewing land ownership as extending miles under ground much less calling it "on their land." BTW, even the liberal EPA has not been able to back up your claim that they are being affected by horizontal fracking. So far only liberal land owners who want to block progress for their political ideology are making that claim.
 
Private owners have approved of operators drilling on their land.

Sure, but what's being taken out and the what gets left behind often impacts a lot of private owners who were not consulted and do not get any share in the profits.

Even as a libertarian, I have a hard time viewing land ownership as extending miles under ground much less calling it "on their land." BTW, even the liberal EPA has not been able to back up your claim that they are being affected by horizontal fracking. So far only liberal land owners who want to block progress for their political ideology are making that claim.

Kaz, there are mineral ownership rights and lots of times those aren't transferred to the next landowner. There can be shallow or deep rights also.
 
Sure, but what's being taken out and the what gets left behind often impacts a lot of private owners who were not consulted and do not get any share in the profits.

Even as a libertarian, I have a hard time viewing land ownership as extending miles under ground much less calling it "on their land." BTW, even the liberal EPA has not been able to back up your claim that they are being affected by horizontal fracking. So far only liberal land owners who want to block progress for their political ideology are making that claim.

Kaz, there are mineral ownership rights and lots of times those aren't transferred to the next landowner. There can be shallow or deep rights also.

What I am aware of recently is the horizontal fracking where government is granting the rights miles under ground. It's like a development where if landowners had to sign off, one landowner could block the project because it's not practical to avoid a random property. Government OK'd the drilling, but the landowners are actually getting royalty checks. A handful of liberals want to stop them for their political ideology and keep us dependent on foreign oil so we load tankers up and float them across oceans to protect the environment while sending checks to prop up despotic governments. Yes, liberals are morons.

If manifold is referring to something else, maybe he could be more specific.
 
A mandatory 2 years in the military for citizens who turn 18 would solve a lot of that. Just my 2 cents.

The strength of America`s military lies in the fact that its members are volunteers, who WANT to be there.

If there was military draft and you were 18 years old and just received your draft notice, you would probably burn it and bolt to Canada as your fellow liberals did a generation ago.

Just my 2 cents.

We'd still have an all volunteer miliatry. But they would be supported by a national guard that is predicated on 2 years mandatory cumpulsory service...whether your name is Jane Doe or Sasha Obama.

As for bolting to Canada, I know you guys don't like details so I won't bore you with them but when your nation is at war that it's leaders are deeming unwinnable and are suing for peace, you think twice about going into battle.

Secondarily, this isn't a draft; it's part of the deal...you turn 18 and you spend 2 years on patrol supporting the standing army. Do we really need active duty MP's guarding Luke AFB?

No matter how you try to sugarcoat it, it is still SLAVERY! If you support it, you are evil.
 
The stadium plan should be broomed. The existing stadium should be sufficient for all schools in the area for at least thirty years.

The current stadium is overbooked and they are building more schools as we speak.
A new stadium is needed.

Then I guess they need to adjust the sports schedules! Is there a game in the stadium every day during the school year? If not, it's not overbooked!
 
$70 million

Would pay for 175,000 laptop computers
Would pay a years tuition at a Texas University for 14,000 students

Where does the educational dollar go in Texas?
FOOTBALL

and money via corporate sponsorships help bring back money into the coffers. while i think 70 million for a HS football stadium is ridiculous, the voters approved it. it is not your money, so why are you bitching about it?

Not bitching.....laughing. :lol:

rightwinger admitted to bitching

next
 
Even as a libertarian, I have a hard time viewing land ownership as extending miles under ground much less calling it "on their land." BTW, even the liberal EPA has not been able to back up your claim that they are being affected by horizontal fracking. So far only liberal land owners who want to block progress for their political ideology are making that claim.

Kaz, there are mineral ownership rights and lots of times those aren't transferred to the next landowner. There can be shallow or deep rights also.

What I am aware of recently is the horizontal fracking where government is granting the rights miles under ground. It's like a development where if landowners had to sign off, one landowner could block the project because it's not practical to avoid a random property. Government OK'd the drilling, but the landowners are actually getting royalty checks. A handful of liberals want to stop them for their political ideology and keep us dependent on foreign oil so we load tankers up and float them across oceans to protect the environment while sending checks to prop up despotic governments. Yes, liberals are morons.

If manifold is referring to something else, maybe he could be more specific.

It wasn't my intent to hijack this thread.

All I'm really saying is that hydraulic fracturing can impact an area much larger than the 'property' upon which it is drilled. So why not let people vote on whether they want to allow it in their town/county/state.
 

Forum List

Back
Top